Next Gen Consoles

Jamezinho said:
As has been said before, consoles are sold at a loss and Sony/MS make their money back on the software. It's not a fair comparison when we are talking about subsidised hardware (consoles) versus hardware that is sold to make a profit (PCs).

In the end the cost of gaming on a console vs PC isn't much different. I pay more for the hardware and much less for games, you pay more for games and much less for the hardware.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but price does matters !!!
Otherwise it's like a comparisson of a VW Golf VI and a BMW M3.
The Golf is nice, but shitty, when it comes to a compare to the M3, but hey, this costs twice the money.
If you compare you will have to do it on the lowest, same level.

It's quite sure, that PS4 will not be able to offer power as a good gaming pc and especially not as a high end gaming pc. No question.

Sony will make a loss of 60 US $ per sold unit.
In total the system costs 459$ - which is about 340€.
I want to see a pc system at same costs with a comparable input device, operating system etc. performing at the same level as PS4. I think right now this will be nearly impossible. And even if you are able to configure one at the same costs in two or three years this PC won't play up to date titles at HD resolution any more. The PS4 will for sure. It will take still some time to use full power of the new consoles as always in the past.

But I have also to comit that true next gen graphics will be on the gaming pc over the next years. but the possibilitys are nearly limitless but will cost a lot of money. If you want to have shiny graphics all the time, you have to play on a decent gaming pc all the time and stay away from consoles - that's it.
If you want to save money, have fun even with not the best graphics on the planet you can choose a next gen concole.

I can understand the, let's say, dissapointment of the next gen consoles.
The steps in terms of graphics are not that big like it was in the past and in future this will be even smaller.

Comparing PC with console is senseless in some ways as it is to compare a Golf to a "racing car". Different power, different price and different environment to use it at.

In the end everyone has to decide for himself which system to use to play on it for his very own reasons. Each system has its strength, but the most important point are the games!!!
 
@we7god - It seems like you didn't understand the post you're responding to - he agrees with what you're saying... You cannot build a PC with equivalent performance to a PS4 for the same price as the PS4. Nobody has said otherwise and Jamezinho said "I pay more for the hardware" and has illustrated why that is the case...

The assumption that PC gaming is so much more expensive does not hold true in many cases if you give it more thought than simply the price of the hardware. Think about the price of the games for consoles, especially launch titles and those in the first 12 months of the console's life - they usually end up being £40-£55 each (even FIFA 14 PS3/360 now is around £40 everywhere I've looked), with special offers on them being very unlikely. PC games tend to cost much less on release, and regular Steam sales/Humble Bundles make loads of top quality games available for peanuts.

Factor in the difference in price of the games themselves if you buy several of them (and in the case of the Xbox, XBL Subscription) and it really isn't the clear-cut cheaper option that you'd be led to believe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think people are missing the point. The fact these "next-gen" consoles can't consistently do 1080p 60fps as a standard is the main issue here, not price points. The technology has been there for a long time and Sony/MS should really be able to use hardware capable of 1080p 60fps in this day and age.

For all the hype and expectation, still playing at 720p or 30fps is pretty shocking in 2013 for a console that you imagine Sony/MS will hope to last another 10 years. These consoles are already out of date, where will they be in a few years when PC's really move on.

For what it's worth, I've got a PS4 pre-ordered but I certainly expected to be playing at better than 720p and/or 30fps on "next-gen".
 
jaygrim said:
How much would I spend upgrading a PC over 10 years.
Click to expand...
As Placebo says, depends entirely on what you want from it as to what you'd buy and how much you spend. If you put something together with reliable medium-high end components then it's most likely going to last as long as a console with no further upgrades if you're happy enough to play things on medium/lower settings a few years down the line (bear in mind at that point medium/low on PC would still be equal to or better than what the consoles do) but if you wanted to keep getting the absolute max settings out of all the latest games you'd obviously be spending much more on regular upgrades.

PC gaming is entirely possible on a console budget though, the idea that it isn't is a complete misnomer that's perpetuated without any real consideration.

DagsJT said:
I think people are missing the point. The fact these "next-gen" consoles can't consistently do 1080p 60fps as a standard is the main issue here, not price points. The technology has been there for a long time and Sony/MS should really be able to use hardware capable of 1080p 60fps in this day and age.

For all the hype and expectation, still playing at 720p or 30fps is pretty shocking in 2013 for a console that you imagine Sony/MS will hope to last another 10 years. These consoles are already out of date, where will they be in a few years when PC's really move on.

For what it's worth, I've got a PS4 pre-ordered but I certainly expected to be playing at better than 720p and/or 30fps on "next-gen".
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say. Regardless of the price, 1080p 60fps be the standard for all games from both consoles. PCs have been capable of it for years now and the launch games in particular I would have expected to be particularly good looking to set the precedent and give a good first impression.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd happily pay a grand for a new console with PC quality specs, and the right performance I can game on for the next 4-5 years.
 
The XBO and the PS4 can both output 1080p and 60FPS. There's no issue with that. It's the games developers that decide on the resolution and output for their games, not Sony or MS. Games like Fifa, NBA2k14 and Forza 5 show this - EA have gone for 1080p and 60FPS on both the PS4 and the XBO (Forza obviously an XBO only game). I'm sure I read somewhere - possibly in this thread - that a spokesperson for DICE claimed that they decided against going native 1080p on the XBO because it was absolutely fine running at 720p, which gave them other options too including detail levels. Actually, it was possibly on another site. I forget, and I digress.

Both consoles can output and match each other in terms of performance. Consoles will never beat a PC in a power bout. Never. But then the console wasn't designed to do that.
 
If PC gaming is cheaper or more expensive depends on the exact hardware and how many games you are playing aswell if you are going to buy game directly on release or later. On consoles there is as well a trading market, which is non existend on pc. So you can buy also cheap games on consoles.

A good gamer PC is around 800 - 1000 € (not highend) which is more the two times of PS4 price for example. Now guessing the price difference of each game is about 20€ we are talking about 20 games until you reach the same price level. But only if you are buying them at release. short after you can also buy used console games at a lower price.

As I mentioned a direct comparisson is useless, because there are too many factors which are definetly not comparable due to different environment. And as it comes to the games, only a small amount of games are available on all systems.

Just for myself playing on a console is more layback, much more comfortable (sitting on my couch infront of a 55" screen) and it's cheaper.

Just a summary of my spendings:

Gamer PC in May 2009 = 1.100 €
4 Games = 145 €

PS3 in March 2010 = 299 €
36 Games = 895 €


vondave said:
I'd happily pay a grand for a new console with PC quality specs, and the right performance I can game on for the next 4-5 years.
Click to expand...

I will easily play 4-5 with one of the next gen consoles even for the lower price with lower specs... :D
 
Last edited:
The main issue is people talking about 1080p 60fps as though that is true progress. It's not progress at all. It's the same old tat with fancier graphics.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The main problem I have with the notion of PC gaming, is the fact it makes me a PC gamer. If I put a PC in my lounge I might as well lop off my genitalia there and then. I'll have nae cause to use them.
 
romagnoli said:
The main problem I have with the notion of PC gaming, is the fact it makes me a PC gamer. If I put a PC in my lounge I might as well lop off my genitalia there and then. I'll have nae cause to use them.
Click to expand...

I play PC games in my bedroom (where our projector screen is), my PC is not in my bedroom.
 
Scutch said:
The XBO and the PS4 can both output 1080p and 60FPS. There's no issue with that. It's the games developers that decide on the resolution and output for their games, not Sony or MS. Games like Fifa, NBA2k14 and Forza 5 show this - EA have gone for 1080p and 60FPS on both the PS4 and the XBO (Forza obviously an XBO only game). I'm sure I read somewhere - possibly in this thread - that a spokesperson for DICE claimed that they decided against going native 1080p on the XBO because it was absolutely fine running at 720p, which gave them other options too including detail levels. Actually, it was possibly on another site. I forget, and I digress.

Both consoles can output and match each other in terms of performance. Consoles will never beat a PC in a power bout. Never. But then the console wasn't designed to do that.
Click to expand...

Sports games are some of the least demanding so that's why they can run like that. If developers are choosing to run at 720p and lower frame rates for more demanding games then that should tell you something.

The difference between 720p and 1080p is very noticeable and the latter will always give more detail. As Dags said, the technology is there to run 1080p @ 60fps and has been for a few years. It isn't expensive either.

I had a Radeon 7850 in my PC (the GPU the PS4 is using) and it could run 1080p/60fps fine at medium to high detail. This is with poorly optimised PC games. Something is amiss with these new consoles.
 
Jamezinho said:
I had a Radeon 7850 in my PC (the GPU the PS4 is using) and it could run 1080p/60fps fine at medium to high detail. This is with poorly optimised PC games. Something is amiss with these new consoles.
Click to expand...

You know that isn't a valid conclusion to draw from launch titles on consoles for which the spec hasn't been finalised and the tools with which to code for them would have been in a very crude state until a few months ago. It's casuistic to suggest that something is 'wrong' with the new consoles because a multi-platform launch title is running as if, hmm, it's a first crack at a next-gen engine being rushed to meet launch? Funny that.
 
Jamezinho said:
I had a Radeon 7850 in my PC (the GPU the PS4 is using) and it could run 1080p/60fps fine at medium to high detail. This is with poorly optimised PC games. Something is amiss with these new consoles.
Click to expand...

Again, apart from Battlefield which is 900p, every other game on PS4 so far is 1080p, at least all of the games whose resolution has been announced.

So what is amiss?
 
romagnoli said:
You know that isn't a valid conclusion to draw from launch titles on consoles for which the spec hasn't been finalised and the tools with which to code for them would have been in a very crude state until a few months ago. It's casuistic to suggest that something is 'wrong' with the new consoles because a multi-platform launch title is running as if, hmm, it's a first crack at a next-gen engine being rushed to meet launch? Funny that.
Click to expand...

Except the commonality in architecture between these new consoles and the PCs the games are coded on is much closer than ever. It won't take very long for developers to hit the ground running with these consoles. The PS3 was notoriously difficult to code for, the PS4 won't be.

You will see these consoles hit their peak much sooner than the last generation and I will stand by that.

In the end, the majority of console consumers will be very happy with what they are getting and that's all that matters. As someone who wants performance and visuals to move forward, these consoles aren't for me.
 
Will be interesting to see what prices the Steam Machines are sold at. They could potentially be a good compromise for those who think PCs are too expensive.
 
airjoca said:
Again, apart from Battlefield which is 900p, every other game on PS4 so far is 1080p, at least all of the games whose resolution has been announced.

So what is amiss?
Click to expand...

It's not just about resolution, it's frame rates too. I'm less concerned about the PS4 as it's the more powerful console and will be able to run 1080p natively in most cases. The XB1 looks less capable of doing so.

1080p is great but 30fps doesn't cut it for me any more and I think that is what you will see most of the demanding games running at.

Most people don't care and that's fine. To me these consoles aren't powerful enough to deliver the performance that I consider progress, but that's just me. I'm happy to invest in the hardware to get that performance.
 
Great, now the PC.nerds infested the thread trying to take people for their dark side. I think we, the console noobs (PS4 and Xone), should unite in a war against these PC elitists and send them all back to their dungeons! :RANT:
 
Jamezinho said:
Except the commonality in architecture between these new consoles and the PCs the games are coded on is much closer than ever. It won't take very long for developers to hit the ground running with these consoles. The PS3 was notoriously difficult to code for, the PS4 won't be.

You will see these consoles hit their peak much sooner than the last generation and I will stand by that.
Click to expand...
Too simplistic. Of course the peak is going to be reached sooner, that's obvious from the outset; that doesn't mean there's no learning curve whatsoever. MS were still tweaking their spec a month or two ago. The coding libraries are brand spanking new, and while they're almost definitely better than the equivalents of 8 years ago, they're still pretty bloody basic.

In the end, the majority of console consumers will be very happy with what they are getting and that's all that matters. As someone who wants performance and visuals to move forward, these consoles aren't for me.
Click to expand...
I want games to move forward, so I'm gradually able to be more open about the fact that I play them to my friends, who don't but love other storytelling media. Visuals do matter to an extent, and performance matters to me chiefly in the context of longevity of the console itself, but most of all I want emotive depth rather than to feel my brain soften. PC gamers can keep using Crysis N as their benchmark; The Last Of Us is mine. Interestingly that sort of title is better in 30fps than 60, owing to it looking more cinematic as a result.
 
romagnoli said:
Too simplistic. Of course the peak is going to be reached sooner, that's obvious from the outset; that doesn't mean there's no learning curve whatsoever. MS were still tweaking their spec a month or two ago. The coding libraries are brand spanking new, and while they're almost definitely better than the equivalents of 8 years ago, they're still pretty bloody basic.


I want games to move forward, so I'm gradually able to be more open about the fact that I play them to my friends, who don't but love other storytelling media. Visuals do matter to an extent, and performance matters to me chiefly in the context of longevity of the console itself, but most of all I want emotive depth rather than to feel my brain soften. PC gamers can keep using Crysis N as their benchmark; The Last Of Us is mine. Interestingly that sort of title is better in 30fps than 60, owing to it looking more cinematic as a result.
Click to expand...

Last of us would look and run much better at 60fps.
 
Just as films look worse at 50/60fps, so The Last Of Us and similar games aiming for a cinematic (or modern day TV) feel would look worse at 60fps. Like when the new LotR came out at 48fps (or something) at select cinemas and ended up looking like Emmerdale.
 
UFC runs at 1080p, 30FPS on PS4 & Xbox One, director confirms
UFC is now in the hands of EA Sports studio EA Canada, and creative director Brian Hayes has confirmed that the game will run at 30FPS, due to the “discernible” difference seen in 60FPS.

Speaking with Gaming Bolt, Hayes said, “UFC is running at 1080p. The game sim is running at 60 FPS, but rendering at 30 FPS with motion blur.

“From prior experience working on Fight Night Round 4 and Fight Night Champion, which rendered at 60 and 30 FPS respectively, we discovered that 60 FPS didn’t have a hugely beneficial impact on gameplay, but motion blur had an enormous impact on visual quality.

“In fact, when we focus tested the two, the majority of people preferred the 30FPS experience with motion blur. So, as opposed to arbitrarily jumping back to 60 FPS for little discernible benefit, we decided to put those resources towards improving the visual presentation of the game in other ways.”

Would you prefer the game’s grunt go towards that 60FPS ‘sweet spot’, or are you happy for it to be used in enhancing other aspects of the game.

Speaking of which, UFC now features female combatants, a move that has seen a varied reaction from all quarters. What do you think?
 
Now for something completely different:

qspl.jpg
 
Isslander said:
Well if there are female UFC fighters, seems logical to put them in the game. What are the arguments against it?
Click to expand...

Jay just copies and pastes stuff, I think the main point was about the 1080p 30fps stuff not about female fighters in UFC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom